Again, I don’t understand why you feel it is necessary to actually republish the degrading pictures for more people to see. You accomplish nothing by doing so except cause the images to by wider circulated. It is a sign that you do not fully appreciate the power of sexual images. A simple description would have sufficed.
I was unawares of these ads until now (the ones I’d seen at the bus terminals in Halifax were mild enough), so I went to the American Apparel website. I think what troubled me the most was seeing a topless women on a horse in the ‘slideshow’ on the main page just before the next picture, a little girl modelling their children’s line, then the next photo back to naked women with animals. That has to be illegal… right?
We have a warning for the images now. But I tend to think those images are only shocking when I see them. I wouldn’t get fired up over a description (I hate American Apparel, and don’t own a shred of their clothing precisely because I have always been able to see these ads, just walking through the mall.) Plus here’s the rub: You can see those images in the mall. Since we are making negative commentary about the company and the photos, rather than advertising, I think it makes sense to show the photos that can readily be seen on the street anyway (much to my chagrin). I hope it inspires people to take on boycott campaigns, or to ask malls to be more careful, given little kids (and teens) walk through.
And one could argue that this is what the Centre for Bio-ethical Reform is doing–Show the truth about abortion, through pictures…
The difference between graphic images of a violent and of a s*xual nature is that violent images do not reflexively cause a person to become violent, while s*xual images do reflexively arouse s*xual impulses, especially in men, and especially in men with broken s*xualities (which constitute the vast majority of men in our society). Hence while it is just to display graphically violent images in order to create a sense of repulsion in people that will cause them to rethink abortion and oppose it, it is rarely if ever justified to display erotic images as they spark s*xual impulses that are difficult to control.
I know that for yourself as a women this is not so apparent to you, but to me and I’m sure most other men in our society and time it is a constant and daily problem. Thank you so much for listening to my concern and putting that warning up. And I do believe that a description would be quite sufficient for your purposes. I know that Jennifer’s description (above) of American Apparel’s website is enough to make any right-minded person’s blood boil.
by 
Again, I don’t understand why you feel it is necessary to actually republish the degrading pictures for more people to see. You accomplish nothing by doing so except cause the images to by wider circulated. It is a sign that you do not fully appreciate the power of sexual images. A simple description would have sufficed.
I was unawares of these ads until now (the ones I’d seen at the bus terminals in Halifax were mild enough), so I went to the American Apparel website. I think what troubled me the most was seeing a topless women on a horse in the ‘slideshow’ on the main page just before the next picture, a little girl modelling their children’s line, then the next photo back to naked women with animals. That has to be illegal… right?
We have a warning for the images now. But I tend to think those images are only shocking when I see them. I wouldn’t get fired up over a description (I hate American Apparel, and don’t own a shred of their clothing precisely because I have always been able to see these ads, just walking through the mall.) Plus here’s the rub: You can see those images in the mall. Since we are making negative commentary about the company and the photos, rather than advertising, I think it makes sense to show the photos that can readily be seen on the street anyway (much to my chagrin). I hope it inspires people to take on boycott campaigns, or to ask malls to be more careful, given little kids (and teens) walk through.
And one could argue that this is what the Centre for Bio-ethical Reform is doing–Show the truth about abortion, through pictures…
The difference between graphic images of a violent and of a s*xual nature is that violent images do not reflexively cause a person to become violent, while s*xual images do reflexively arouse s*xual impulses, especially in men, and especially in men with broken s*xualities (which constitute the vast majority of men in our society). Hence while it is just to display graphically violent images in order to create a sense of repulsion in people that will cause them to rethink abortion and oppose it, it is rarely if ever justified to display erotic images as they spark s*xual impulses that are difficult to control.
I know that for yourself as a women this is not so apparent to you, but to me and I’m sure most other men in our society and time it is a constant and daily problem. Thank you so much for listening to my concern and putting that warning up. And I do believe that a description would be quite sufficient for your purposes. I know that Jennifer’s description (above) of American Apparel’s website is enough to make any right-minded person’s blood boil.